Aerodynamics of Japanese fighters (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

That was my ki-84 video and I'm working on calculations for other Japanese fighters as well. Regarding the N1K2-J, it is quite comparable to an F4F-4 in terms of wing span, area, weight, pudginess? So, if you put a 2000 hp engine on the Wildcat, it should be close to "George". Using the Standard Aircraft Characteristics data for the F4F-4, its drag works out to 0.0198 for 260 sq ft ( A base value, corresponding to Mach 0. Compressibility correction is applied based on Mach number ), or an "equivalent flat plate area ( f )" of 0.0198 x 260 = 5.15 sq ft. This was arrived at from knowing the speed of 284 mph at sea level with 1200 hp and a 9.75 ft prop with 77.5% propeller efficiency.

The next step was to put a 3.3 m prop on it and give it 2000 hp. The speed goes up to 337 mph at sea level. Taking it up to 6000 m, with 1625 hp, the speed is 375 mph TAS. So, looking at the published figures for "George" of 369 mph, you can see it is right in the ballpark and very comparable to a Wildcat in drag terms. I suspect the fatter fuselage counters the laminar wing to a large extent.
 
Hey thanks for providing that information. Your video is fantastic.

Regading the George 21, The George 21 came with three primary engine variants, two of which were derated from its maximum horsepower. The same is true for the Ki.84.

The derated engine that was listed in the George 21 Prototype's Handbook mentioned that the top military speed was 644 KPH. Laurelix calculated its WEP at around 658 KPH. Japanese Wikipedia also has the same numbers, which are derived from the Shiden Kai manual. I also applied the equation for determining the aircraft's top speed in that thread and the math appears to be correctly done (if you use the only authoritative source available).

Also, the top speed in the manual aligns with some IJN pilots' recollections for the top speed of the Shiden. As far as I'm concerned, this is the truest value we're going to get given the available data.

The 369 MPH number is of unknown pedigree. It was derived from a 1946 Japanese source hastily compiled from memory. I believe this is the military rating of the George 11b (or N1K1-J-Otsu) which had streamlined its wing. Japanese records specifically state that removing the gun pods added around 7 MPH.

The report originated from a US government request for official performance values from the Japanese. Unfortunately, many of the official records had been destroyed. The only authoritative text remaining is the Shiden Kai prototype handbook. The best secondary sources after that are pilot biographies which mention and corroborate the manual.
 
Would probably be similar to the difference between A6m2 and A6m2-N
Well, I'm sure there would be a differwnce in performance, but it would certainly be quite a difference.

The A6M2 Model 21 had speeds of 317mph plus, while the A6M2-N had speeds of roughly 270mph due to the main float and outriders.

The M6A1 had a top speed of 295mph with it's twin floats where the M6A1-K had retractable landing gear (it was land-based) and the upper folding portion of the vertical stabilizer omitted.
 
Interesting...It makes sense that the airplane would be tested with lower grade fuel ( hence being de-rated ), since the good stuff would go to the front line combat units as a priority. Or, it just wasn't available at the time. The US did the same thing. For training, they used 91/96 grade and gave the engine limits in the handbook. As an example,



The figure of 321 knots at 5600 m is actually exactly the same as 330 knots at 6000m, as given in the handbook. The indicated speed is 240 knots in both cases. The airplane would have been tested at 6000m, since it was to meet the same specification as the J2M ( 325 knots at 6000 m ) and the Americans actually captured a document containing that figure. They thought it was low also, but maybe didn't realize it was the speed to which the airplane was to meet or exceed in the specification. Later, they found more information that gave the figure of 354 knots. This is where the figure of 407 mph comes from in the TAIC manual. Anyway, if the density altitude was 5600 m, it means the test flight took place on a cold day, where the outside air temperature was about 15C colder than "standard". Once corrected back to "standard" atmosphere, you get the figure of 330 knots at a density altitude of 6000 m.

I was always under the impression that the figure of 348 knots was just a calculated figure to which the airplane failed to meet. According to Jiro Horikoshi in "Eagles of Mitsubishi", they were using an "obsolete" method of calculating top speeds, which is why the Zero never met their expectations. He doesn't say what the issue was, but I suspect it was compressibility correction. This would have been an industry wide problem. In any case, it now makes more sense that it corresponds to the fully rated engine, versus the derated engine, especially given the climb times, which compressibility drag by itself cannot make up the difference. And, why would they publish such data in the manual? "Look at how bad our airplane performs, compared to what we thought it would do! " haha

So, I agree that 348 knots at 6000 m is the speed with rated power of 1700 HP ( 1675 hp ) @ +350 mm boost / 3000 rpm ). I will post more in the other thread. On a final note, my calcs give a Cd0 ( Mach 0 ) of 0.0174, if 330 knots at 6000 m is achieved with 88% rated power ( about 1500 HP, if power varies directly with manifold pressure and RPM ). Then, applying rated power, I get the figure of 345 knots, only 3 knots less than that published in the manual. So, that makes perfect sense.
 

Users who are viewing this thread